********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 15 of the
Commission's Rules Regarding
Spread Spectrum Devices
)
)
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 99-231
FIRST REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: August 22, 2000 Released: August 31, 2000
By the Commission: Chairman Kennard issuing a statement; and Commissioners Ness and Furchtgott-
Roth issuing a joint statement.
INTRODUCTION
1. In this First Report and Order ("First R&O") we are amending Part 15 of the Commission's
rules for frequency hopping spread spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band (2400 2483.5 MHz). This
First R&O amends the rules to allow frequency hopping spread spectrum transmitters operating in the
band to use a minimum of 15 hopping channels, spanning a total of 75 MHz. The new rules will allow
for hopping channels up to 5 MHz wide. The wider bandwidths will permit these systems to provide
higher data speeds, thereby enabling the development of new and improved consumer products such as
wireless computer local area networks and wireless cable modems.
BACKGROUND
2.Spread spectrum devices are currently permitted to operate on an unlicensed basis under Part
15 of the Commission's regulations. Because of the interference avoidance characteristics of spread
spectrum technology, these devices are permitted greater output power than non-spread Part 15
transmitters that operate in the same band. Section 15.247 limits the output power of frequency hopping
spread spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz band to 1 Watt. The systems must use a minimum of 75 non-
overlapping hopping channels having a 20 dB bandwidth no greater than 1 MHz. In addition, the
average time of occupancy on any frequency must not exceed 0.4 seconds in any 30 second period.
3.The Commission initiated this proceeding in response to a letter filed by the Home RF
Working Group ("Home RF") requesting that Part 15 spread spectrum systems operating in the 2.4 GHz
band be permitted to use bandwidths of up to 5 MHz. The Notice proposed rule changes consistent with
the request of the Home RF Working Group. Specifically, the Notice proposed to allow systems to
operate with bandwidths of up to 3 MHz or 5 MHz in the 2.4 GHz band. Under the proposal, the systems
would utilize 75 hopping channels. Output power would be reduced in proportion to the increase in
bandwidth over 1 MHz. For example, systems with 3 MHz bandwidths would operate with output power
of no more than 320 mW and channel occupancy time no greater than 0.05 second per hop. Each of the
75 channels would be used at least once during a 3.75 second period. Like existing 1 MHz systems, the
average time of occupancy on any channel would not be greater than 0.4 second within a 30 second
period. Under the proposal, systems using 5 MHz bandwidths would operate with output power of no
more than 200 mW and channel occupancy time of no greater than 0.02 second per hop. Each of the 75
hopping channels would be used at least once during a 1.5 second period. Again, the average occupancy
time on any channel would remain 0.4 second or less per 30 second period.
4. A list of parties that filed comments in response to the Notice can be found in Appendix A.
The commenting parties include manufacturers of both frequency hopping and direct sequence spread
spectrum devices, trade organizations representing those manufacturers, members of the general public,
school systems and universities, and ISM equipment manufacturers and trade organizations. Comments
were submitted both supporting and objecting to the proposal. Some commenters also submitted
suggestions for modifications of the proposal contained in the Notice.
DISCUSSION
5.The Home RF Working Group filed comments supporting the Notice. It stated that the
proposal will enable frequency hopping spread spectrum devices operating in the 2.4 GHz band to
increase data transmission speeds from approximately 2 MB/s to 10 MB/s. It asserts that the proposal
will enable the introduction of new wireless devices that will benefit users in education, health care,
business, residential, and other environments, as well as persons with disabilities. It states that, most
importantly, wide band frequency hopping will enable high-speed wireless communications in the home
that will integrate data, voice, and video communications, for such applications as high-speed access to
the Internet, wireless cable modems, personal multimedia communicators, headsets for Internet audio
broadcasts, and wireless gaming devices. The Home RF Working Group further asserts that the
proposed rule changes will not increase interference to existing radio services or to Part 15 devices that
operate in the 2400 2483 MHz band. The Committee for Unlicensed Broadband Enablement (CUBE),
which consists of several members of the Home RF Working Group, submitted a detailed technical
analysis and test results claiming to show that interference to Part 15 devices would not increase and in
many cases will actually decrease. CUBE states that the proposed rule changes are needed to preserve
the competitive balance between the capabilities of frequency hopping and direct sequence spread
spectrum devices operating in this band. CUBE asserts that ensuring that frequency hopping technology
will be competitive with direct sequence technology will benefit consumers by leading to improved
devices at lower costs. CUBE also states that the proposal to permit up to 5 MHz bandwidths will allow
backward compatibility with existing devices. More than 80 additional parties submitted comments and
ex parte filings in support of the Notice.
6.The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance ("WECA"), a number of its members, and others
filed comments opposing the Notice. They argue that the proposed rule change will increase interference
to Part 15 devices operating in the 2400 2483 MHz band. They assert that the demand for higher speed
data transmission can be met by direct sequence spread spectrum systems or unlicensed national
information infrastructure (U-NII) devices, and that there is no need to allow increased bandwidth for
frequency hopping spread spectrum devices. Further, WECA asserts that frequency hopping systems
using increased bandwidth will be less able to withstand interference from other frequency hopping
systems and from direct sequence systems. According to WECA the wide band frequency hopping
systems are likely to increase their power output or retransmit signals more often in order to overcome
interference, thereby increasing interference to other unlicensed devices operating in this spectrum.
WECA and others submitted technical analyses and test results in an attempt to show that the proposed
rule changes will increase interference to existing direct sequence and frequency hopping spread
spectrum systems. Approximately 40 parties filed comments and ex parte pleadings opposing the Notice
for similar reasons.
7.Comments. Opponents expressed a number of specific concerns. They assert that devices
operating under the proposed new rules will not be able to achieve the claimed higher data rates because
they will be more prone to multipath and interference problems. The opponents therefore assert the
Home RF proposal will have little or no public benefit. The opponents are concerned that, under the
Notice, wide band frequency hopping systems could use overlapping hopping channels. Intersil and
Lucent submitted technical analyses and test data claiming to show that interference from partially
overlapping channels is more detrimental to frequency hopping systems than the first-adjacent or co-
channel interference. According to Intersil, wide band frequency hopping systems employing
overlapping channels will experience a greater level of mutual interference than existing systems that use
1 MHz bandwidths. To compensate, they assert that the systems would likely resort to multiple
retransmissions, with the net effect that wide bandwidth systems will transmit continuously and totally
occupy the 2400-2483 MHz band to the exclusion of other devices. Silicon Wave supports Intersil's
findings. Several parties state that the Home RF proposal will cause interference to devices under
development by Bluetooth, a cross-industry group formed to establish industry-wide specifications for
unlicensed wireless voice and data communications devices operating in the 2.4 GHz band.
8.WECA and other opponents of the Home RF proposal offer several proposals as a compromise
to reduce the potential for interference to other Part 15 devices. They maintain that the output power
should be reduced much further than the proposed 200 milliwatts. Several members of WECA offer a
compromise that would limit the bandwidth of wide band frequency hopping spread spectrum systems to
4 MHz, establish a minimum of 20 hopping channels, and restrict the output power to 65 milliwatts.
WECA asserts that this proposal would be consistent with European standard ETS 300 328. The ETS
300 328 standard permits frequency hopping systems in the 2.4 GHz band to use at least 20 non-
overlapping hopping channels, each with up to 4 MHz bandwidth, and up to 100 mW effective radiated
power, or 64 mW transmitter output power based on an assumed isotropic antenna gain of 1.64 dB.
WECA notes that, in a previous proceeding where the Commission reduced the number of required hops
for spread spectrum devices operating in the 915 MHz band, the output power was reduced in proportion
to the square in the number of hopping frequencies. For a system using a 4 MHz bandwidth the number
of hopping channels would be reduced by a factor of approximately 4 (from 75 to 20 channels), and the
output power would need to be reduced by a factor of 16 (from 1 watt to 60 mW). WECA also suggests
two additional requirements. First, WECA proposes to require interference rejection tests for receivers
in frequency hopping systems having channel widths greater than 1 MHz. WECA states that the test is
necessary to ensure that receiver performance is adequate to minimize the need to retransmit packets,
which, in turn, will minimize interference to other devices. Second, WECA suggests that the
Commission place a maximum limit of 100 hops/sec for frequency hopping systems using bandwidths
greater than 1 MHz. As justification, WECA argues that parties on both sides of the debate have
acknowledged that increasing the hopping rate also increases interference. However, WECA concedes
that in some cases faster hopping is necessary and desirable for 1 MHz systems. Therefore, WECA does
not propose maximum hopping rate restrictions for systems using 1 MHz channels.
9. In response to the opposition, supporters of the Notice offer suggestions for accommodating
wider bandwidths without overlapping channels. In an ex parte filing received March 23, 2000, Proxim
Inc. proposes to allow manufacturers to use 3 MHz or 5 MHz wide, non-overlapping hopping channels.
The total number of channels used would span at least 75 MHz. Output power for systems using 3 MHz
and 5 MHz wide channels would remain 320 mW and 200 mW, respectively, as originally proposed in
the Notice. Under the Proxim proposal, the average time of occupancy on any hopping channel would be
limited to 0.4 seconds within a 30 second period or a period of 30 seconds divided by the 20 dB channel
bandwidth, whichever is less.
10.Decision. We find that the record supports rule changes that will permit wider bandwidths
for frequency hopping spread spectrum systems. We reject the argument that such rule changes will
have little or no benefit. We note that numerous parties filed comments indicating that the proposed rule
changes would permit the introduction of a wide array of new and improved devices. We have no
reason to doubt these claims. We anticipate that any technical constraints to higher data speeds using
wider bandwidths can be overcome by appropriate equipment design. We also agree that rule changes
to permit wide band frequency hopping systems will encourage competition with direct sequence
technology, to the benefit of consumers.
11. We have carefully reviewed the technical analyses submitted by both the supporters and
opponents of the Home RF proposal. We find that the analyses submitted by the opponents greatly
overstate the risk of interference to other Part 15 devices, including existing frequency hopping and
direct sequence spread spectrum systems. We note, for example, that Lucent submitted several
analyses that conclude that wide band frequency hopping systems would need to reduce their output
power by up to 30 dB relative to the existing 1 watt limit in order to produce interference no greater
than existing 1 MHz frequency hopping systems. However, the analyses rest upon the assumption that
large numbers of wide band frequency hopping devices will be distributed throughout an office or
apartment building. We recognize that such situations can occur, however, Lucent has failed to
demonstrate that such situations are very likely in practice. For example, given the various
alternatives that are available for networking equipment, it seems more reasonable to assume that at
least some users will employ direct sequence systems, systems that operate in other frequency bands,
or may prefer wired solutions. In any event, even if we were to accept Lucent's assumptions about
equipment distribution, it is not reasonable to assume that all such equipment would be attempting to
transmit simultaneously.
12. We also note the analyses submitted by WECA, Silicon Wave and others showing that
existing frequency hopping receivers use FM discriminators that are less tolerant of co-channel and
adjacent channel interference from wide band signals than from existing 1 MHz wide frequency
hopping signals. We have no reason to dispute this claim. However, this fact alone does not point to
a serious increase in interference. In practice both systems are hopping and only a fraction of the hops
would receive interference, which can usually be overcome by automatic retransmission of any lost
data packets or error correction technology. Also, as pointed out by CUBE, frequency hopping
systems must already deal with wide bandwidth signals from direct sequence systems and it is unclear
that wide bandwidth frequency hoppers pose any greater risks. We also note that the current rules
already allow hybrid systems where a wide bandwidth direct sequence signal can hop throughout this
spectrum. With regard to interference to direct sequence systems, we note that the opponents suggest
that the wide band hopping signal would need to be reduced anywhere from 3 to 20 dB, depending
upon the hopping rate, to pose no more interference risk than an existing frequency hopping system.
However, here again the analyses are based upon unrealistic assumptions about a large distribution of
such devices. Further, we note that the results are largely dependent upon whether the interfering
device might use a high hopping rate, which is unregulated even for current frequency hopping devices.
13. We find that the opponents' analyses are founded upon a large number of assumptions that
lead to a great deal of uncertainty in the conclusions. These include assumptions about receiver
performance, signal strengths required for operation, desired operating distance, and separation
distances between devices, among others. We observe that, in practice, the characteristics of Part 15
devices vary widely, due in part to the great deal of flexibility permitted under the rules. We note, for
example, that manufacturers have chosen to develop products that operate anywhere from 1 milliwatt
up to the full 1 watt permitted under the current rules. We also find that the opponents' analyses do not
consider several factors that will tend to mitigate interference. For example, most such devices
transmit short duration bursts of communication based on packet technology, which reduces the
likelihood of simultaneous transmissions. Further, we agree with CUBE that wide band frequency
hopping devices will be able to transmit data at faster speeds, thereby reducing the time they are on the
airwaves. Even where multiple devices are collocated, there is sufficient spectrum available that the
devices should be able to share without causing interference or significant degradation of performance.
We observe that most existing devices are already designed to deal with interference sources such as
microwave ovens and spread spectrum systems, and usually include error correction technology and
the ability to retransmit signals as necessary to deal with any interference. In most cases, consumers
are unaware that interference occurred. We do not believe that wide band frequency hopping devices
will significantly alter the performance of devices already in the hands of consumers. Further, these
devices employ relatively low power levels and interference would generally occur only between a
user's own devices. In such situations the user can often mitigate problems by changing the locations
of the devices, reorienting the antennas, or choosing which device to operate at any given time. We
believe that further analyses or studies would be counterproductive because it is unlikely to yield any
more definitive information and will lead to delay in the availability of new technology that has clear
potential benefits for consumers.
14. We note the arguments by the opponents that the Commission has taken actions in the past
to avoid increasing potential interference to Part 15 devices, and similarly should not adopt rules here
that will increase the risk of interference to these devices. As an initial matter, we want to reinforce
here that the Part 15 rules specifically state that such devices have no vested or recognizable right to
continued use of any frequency and must accept any interference received from other Part 15 devices.
All Part 15 intentional radiators must carry a label informing the user that the device must accept any
interference received, including undesired operation. We anticipate that, in most cases, devices
operating in the 2450 MHz band will provide performance that is sufficiently reliable to meet
consumer needs. Businesses and consumers that cannot tolerate potential interference should consider
operation under a licensed radio service. We also note that Part 15 provides a number of alternatives
to operation in the 2450 MHz band, such as for spread spectrum operations in the 902 928 MHz band
and 5725 5850 MHz, for unlicensed personal communications service devices, for U-NII devices,
and for millimeter wave devices. However, we continue to recognize that it is appropriate to consider
the impact of any rule changes on the users of existing Part 15 devices. In this proceeding we have
sought to balance the benefits of rule changes to accommodate new types of Part 15 devices against the
risk of interference to incumbent devices. We believe that with the rules adopted below, wide band
frequency hopping devices can share the 2450 MHz band without significant interference problems.
15. We believe it is appropriate to adopt rules that represent a reasonable engineering
compromise between the risks of increased interference and the desire to accommodate new
technologies. We are concerned about the comments submitted by the opponents regarding the
interference potential of overlapping frequency hopping channels. Intersil's technical analysis presents
compelling arguments why overlapping channels should not be allowed. However, as noted above,
supporters of the Notice have submitted modified proposals which would eliminate the use of
overlapping channels. In light of this concession, we will amend our rules to allow frequency hopping
systems in the 2.4 GHz band to operate with at least 15 channels. The channels must be separated by
at least their 20 dB bandwidths and may never overlap. The total span of channels shall be at least 75
MHz. We will also require that systems have a greater output power reduction than that proposed in
the Notice. In order to reduce any potential impact on existing unlicensed devices, we will limit
transmitter output power to 125 mW for any frequency hopping system that operates with fewer than
75 hopping channels. This power level is consistent with that used by many frequency hopping
systems today and is only 3 dB more than opponents of the Home RF proposal. We are concerned that
any further power reduction will constrain the useful operating range to such an extent that the devices
will not be useful. The provision for 15 non-overlapping channels will accommodate up to 5 MHz
bandwidths, which will allow faster data speeds and enable backward compatibility with existing
devices.
16. We disagree with arguments that a change in the rules will discourage investments in new
products. Conversely, we contend that as technology evolves, we must amend our rules from time to
time so that innovation is not discouraged. The Commission has done so in previous rulings. For
example, in 1990, we increased the maximum bandwidth for frequency hopping spread spectrum
devices in the 2450 MHz band from 25 kHz to 1 MHz without decreasing the 1 Watt maximum output
power. In that same Order, we increased the maximum bandwidth for systems in the 902-928 MHz
band from 25 kHz to 500 kHz, again, without reducing output power. We noted that, "[T]he wider
bandwidths will provide opportunities for new kinds of equipment to operate under these rules. For
example, the wider bandwidths will allow operation of equipment such as wireless local area networks
that depend on high speed transmission of data."
17. We also note that the rules were again amended in 1996 to reduce the minimum number of
hopping channels in the 902-928 MHz band from 50 to 25. The reduction in the number of hopping
channels was accompanied by a reduction in maximum output power from 1 Watt to 250 mW.
Generally, the Part 15 spread spectrum rules have continued to evolve in order to reflect changes in
technology and consumer needs. We believe the rules we adopt here are responsive to those changes
and will continue to encourage the development of new products.
18. In the Notice, we proposed minimum hopping rates of 20 hops/s (0.05 s/hop channel dwell
time) and 50 hops/s (0.02 s/hop channel dwell time) for systems using 3 MHz and 5 MHz channels,
respectively. However, in order to remain consistent with former regulations, we will leave the
minimum hopping rate unchanged at 2.5 hops/s. Furthermore, we will not specify a maximum hopping
rate for wide band frequency hopping systems, as WECA suggested. We realize that choosing the
hopping rate for a system involves trade-offs. For example, CUBE noted that faster hopping may be
beneficial in some instances because the result is less time spent, on an instantaneous basis, on a
channel that may be experiencing interference. On the other hand, faster hopping may also decrease
system efficiency due to the greater amount of non-transmitting transition phases. The Commission
has previously given manufacturers latitude in choosing the hopping rate which best suits their
particular application. We are confident that manufacturers will continue to use good engineering
practices in order to achieve their desired results without increasing the risk of harmful interference.
19. We will not specify receiver standards, as proposed in WECA's April 10, 2000 letter. We
find that Section 15.247(a)(1), which requires receiver input bandwidth to match hopping channel
bandwidth, provides ample assurance that receivers are indeed functioning as part of a spread spectrum
system. That is the intent of the rule section. Additionally, we agree with Proxim that this issue is
not appropriate for resolution in this First R&O since it was neither proposed by the Commission nor
discussed by other parties.
20. We believe that this compromise strikes an appropriate balance among the interests of the
various parties. It will permit the introduction of wide band frequency hopping technology that will
lead to new and innovative devices. At the same time, we have adjusted the proposal to mitigate any
adverse impact on other Part 15 devices, including existing frequency hopping and direct sequence
spread spectrum systems. We will continue to monitor the situation relative to use of the 2450 MHz
band, and, if appropriate, revisit the rules for unlicensed devices operating in this spectrum at a later time.
21. As part of our public interest obligations, we have also considered the impact of our rules,
including the interference potential of wide band frequency hopping devices, on small businesses and
other end-users of Part 15 products. As discussed above, we believe that the rules we are adopting will
enable wide band frequency hopping devices to share the 2450 MHz band with existing Part 15 devices
without significant interference problems. Moreover, with regard to the market enhancement aspects
discussed above, we believe that the increased product diversification resulting from the rule change
will provide greater flexibility in designing wireless networks. Additionally, the availability of a more
diverse product base will enable a wider variety of networking solutions, thereby benefiting small
businesses and residential consumers who use these products.
22. In ex parte presentations to the Commission, some opponents of the Home RF proposal
argue that the Commission has previously declined a similar request for modification of its frequency
hopping spread spectrum regulations. The opponents refer to a petition for rule making submitted by
Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Symbol). In the petition, Symbol requested a reduction in the required
minimum number of channels, from 75 to 20, for frequency hopping systems in the 2400 - 2483.5 MHz
and 5752 - 5850 MHz bands. Symbol proposed an accompanying reduction in output power equal to
(number of hops/75) Watts. For systems using the minimum number of hopping channels output power
would have been equal to 266 mW. The Commission exercised its discretion with regard to initiating
a rulemaking and denied the petition for a number of reasons. Generally, we stated our concern that
the proposal may result in an increase in interference potential to other systems operating in the bands.
23. There are several differences between the Symbol petition and the rules we are adopting
here that alter the balancing of competing policies and interests that the Commission must undertake in
these instances. For example, the maximum power output we are allowing here for wide band frequency
hopping systems is more than 3 dB below the output power proposed by Symbol, 125 mW compared to 266
mW. Additionally, the record in this proceeding contains substantial support for rule changes to permit
wider frequency hopping channel bandwidths. In a recent letter to the Commission, Proxim, states that,
unlike the Symbol petition, the Commission, "[N]ow has vast amounts of detailed technical analyses and
measurements of the interference potential of WBFH . . . ." We agree. The record in this proceeding now
provides ample technical information on which to base our decision. Furthermore, the record indicates that
the rule change will advance public interest benefits by fostering increased competition for products in the
2450 MHz band and by providing consumers with a wider variety of product from which to choose in order
to meet their wireless networking needs. Finally, the original Home RF petition was supported by fifty-
three signatories and also was supported by industry working groups, such as the Wireless LAN
Interoperability Forum, representing numerous other companies. The Symbol petition did not receive the
same widespread backing and support and therefore we dismissed the petition without proposing the rule
changes it contained. Accordingly, in view of the sustained interest and the considerable record in this
proceeding, we believe that the frequency hopping spread spectrum rules are ripe for revision.
24. In light of the above, we find that the decision not to initiate a rulemaking on the Symbol
petition does not require us to reject the rule changes we decide to make at this time based on the record
developed in this proceeding. In dismissing the Symbol petition we expressed concern regarding the
interference potential to both licensed as well as to other Part 15 devices. The rules we are adopting in this
proceeding are sufficiently different such that the technical concerns we expressed regarding the Symbol
petition are not decisive here. Furthermore, we find that the demand for wider frequency hopping channels
has grown, further justifying the action we take herein. We believe our rules will accommodate this
demand without increasing any interference potential to existing devices.
25. Finally, comments filed by parties holding interests in ISM equipment operation expressed
concern regarding the Commission's regulatory decisions. International Microwave Power Institute fears
that allowing wider bandwidths for Part 15 frequency hopping systems will decrease the systems' ability to
reject interference from ISM equipment, resulting in complaints and calls for regulatory protection for Part
15 systems. Fusion Lighting echoes these concerns. Amana urges the Commission not to take any action
that may lead to the establishment of emission limits for ISM equipment, such as microwave ovens,
operating in the 2400 2483 MHz band. As stated above, the most basic principle of Part 15 operation is
the requirement to function in a non-interfering manner in the midst of licensed devices. Furthermore, Part
15 transmitters have never been afforded any assurance that their transmissions will be protected from
interference received from other devices. In fact, Section 15.5(b) clearly states that their operation is
subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and devices must accept any interference
received from other devices, including ISM equipment. We emphasize that any frequency hopping spread
spectrum system authorized under the new rules will be subject to the conditions of Section 15.5(b).
Manufacturers of these devices will be responsible for ensuring that the devices are able to perform
properly in the ISM band.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
26.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 604, is contained in Appendix C.
ORDERING CLAUSES
27.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 15 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as
specified in Appendix B. This action is taken pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).
28.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this First Report and Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
29.For further information regarding this First Report and Order, contact Neal L. McNeil, Office of
Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2408, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail nmcneil@fcc.gov.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS
1. 2 Wire, Inc.
2. 3 Com Corporation
3. Abracon Corporation
4. Aironet Wireless Networks, Inc.
5. Alantro Communications (Bluetooth)
6. Alations Systems Inc.
7. Amana Appliances
8. Apple Computer, Inc.
9. AsiaPac Distribution Pte Ltd.
10. AT&T Corp.
11. BETHELTRONIX, Inc.
12. Bill Branchold
13. BreezeCOM Ltd.
14. Business Engineering Corporation
15. Cal-Chip Electronics
16. Campbell Union High School District
17. Capax Technologies Inc.
18. Casio Manufacturing Corp.
19. Cayman Systems, Inc.
20. CE Windows
21. Cerner Corporation
22. Cisco Systems, Inc.
23. Clarion Corporation of America
24. Clearwire Technologies, Inc.
25. Cognitive
26. Com21, Inc.
27. COMMACCESS TECHNOLOGIES, Inc.
28. Compaq Computer Corporation
29. Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.
30. CSA Automated Pte Ltd
31. Curtis Lee
32. Data Comm for Business, Inc.
33. Data General Corporation
34. Diablo Research Company, L.L.C.
35. Digital Wireless Corporation
36. Disman-Bakner
37. Dogear, LLC
38. Donovan Consulting Group, Inc.
39. DT Research, Inc.
40. Duel Systems, Inc.
41. Electric Cable, Inc.
42. Entre Mobility Concepts
43. Ericsson, Inc.
44. FCI Electronics
45. Filbitron Systems Group Inc.
46. Fuji Personal Systems, Inc.
47. Fusion Lighting, Inc.
48. Gemini Communication AS
49. General Motors Corporation
50. Glenayre Western Multiplex
51. Global Converging Technologies
52. Global Wireless Data
53. Global Wireless Group, Inc.
54. Great American Ventures, LLC
55. Harris Semiconductor
56. Home RF
57. Home Wireless Networks, Inc.
58. HQ Business Centers
59. ICL
60. Imagicast, Inc.
61. Intel Corporation
62. International Microwave Power Institute
63. Intersil
64. James A. Pautler
65. John Zaremba
66. Kinetic Computer Corporation
67. KMJ Communications, Inc.
68. LARIAT
69. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
70. Luna Communication, Inc.
71. McKesson HBOC, Inc.
72. Micrilor
73. Micro Design Services, LLC
74. MJS Network Services
75. MobileStar
76. Motorola, Inc.
77. National Data Communications, Inc.
78. National Semiconductor Corp.
79. NDC Communications, Inc.
80. Network System Technologies
81. Nokia Inc.
82. Nortel Networks Inc.
83. Northeast Data
84. Odyssey Software, Inc.
85. Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
86. Ok Tedi Mining Limited
87. Open Computer Platforms
88. Panja, Inc.
89. PC-Tel, Inc.
90. Polycom, Inc.
91. Prime Performance Technologies
92. Productivity Enhancement Products
93. Proxim, Inc.
94. Radiall
95. RADIOLAN, Inc.
96. Randolph Development L.L.C.
97. Repeater Technologies, Inc.
98. Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., LTD
99. School PCs
100. SCS Corporation
101. Sharp Electronics Corporation
102. Short Distance Wireless Business Unit of Texas Instruments
103. Siemens Information and Communication Products LLC
104. Silcon Wave, Inc.
105. SILICOMP S.p.a.
106. Smith Investments
107. Solectek Corporation
108. Sonera Corporation
109. Standards Working Group IEEE 802
110. STMicroelectronics, Inc.
111. Symbol Technologies, Inc.
112. TAARCOM, Inc.
113. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
114. The Eastman Kodak Company
115. The Professional Shopper
116. University of Florida, Computer and Information Science & Engineering Dept.
117. University of Oklahoma College of Engineering
118. Wi-LAN, Inc.
119. Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.
120. Wireless Data Corporation
121. Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance
122. Wireless LAN Alliance WLANA
123. Wireless LAN Interoperability Forum
REPLY COMMENTS
1. 3Com Corporation
2. Agilent Technologies
3. Bluetooth Promoters, et al.
4. Committee for Unlicensed Broadband Enablement
5. Ericsson
6. Home Wireless Networks, Inc.
7. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 802
8. Intersil Corporation
9. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
10. Microsoft Corporation
11. Motorola, Inc.
12. Proxim, Inc./Microlor, Inc.
13. Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance
APPENDIX B
A. Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15 is amended as follows:
Section 15.247 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Section 15.247 Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) Frequency hopping systems in the 2400 - 2483.5 MHz band may utilize hopping channels whose
20 dB bandwidth is greater than 1 MHz provided the systems use at least 15 non-overlapping channels.
The total span of hopping channels shall be at least 75 MHz. The average time of occupancy on any
frequency shall not be greater than 0.4 seconds within a 30 second period.
(2) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band employing at least 75 hopping
channels, all frequency hopping systems in the 5725-5850 MHz band, and all direct sequence systems:
1 watt. For all other frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band: 0.125 watts.
APPENDIX C
FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
("IRFA") was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") in this docket, ET Docket 99-
231. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment
on the IRFA. As described more fully below, we find that the rules we adopt in the First Report and Order
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
nonetheless provided this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") to provide a fuller record in this
proceeding. This IRFA conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for and Objective of the Rules.
The rules adopted in this First Report and Order are intended to facilitate the development of spread
spectrum technology, particularly for high data-rate wireless applications. The rules will permit frequency
hopping spread spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz band (2400-2483.5 MHz) to operate with wider hopping
channels. This action is taken in response to a request filed by the Home RF Working Group ("Home RF").
The Home RF request stated that the increased bandwidth is needed to meet business and consumer demand
for high-speed data applications.
In the NPRM in this proceeding, the Commission also proposed to modify the method for measuring
processing gain for certain direct sequence spread spectrum systems. Because of the large volume of
comments the Commission has received in this proceeding, we have decided to address this second issue
separately. Accordingly, we are postponing adoption of final rules for measuring processing gain, and will
address the issue in a future Report and Order. The action we take here is not dependent on resolution of
the processing gain issue.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Comments in Response to the IRFA.
We received six comments in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. Three were submitted by the Office
of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), one by Proxim, Inc. (Proxim), which is a
small business, and one comment apiece by the U.S. Senate and House Small Business Committees.
In its comment dated October 4, 1999, SBA stated that the IRFA did not comply with the RFA.
Specifically, SBA stated that the IRFA did not fully consider the impact that the Commission's proposal
would have on small entities. Furthermore, SBA stated that the IRFA failed to estimate the number of
small businesses affected, describe the objectives of the proposed rules, propose alternatives, and properly
state the paperwork burden the rules would place on equipment manufacturers. Accordingly, SBA stated
that the Commission should not adopt final rules in this proceeding until the Commission conducted a
fuller, superseding IRFA.
Subsequently, in the first of the remaining five, ex parte comments filed in response to the IRFA, Proxim
filed a comment dated January 11, 2000. Proxim stated that approximately 80 small businesses filed
comments in this proceeding, constituting over 66 percent of the almost 120 comments filed in total.
Proxim noted that small business participated during both the comment and reply comment periods, and
filed comments on both sides of the proposals. Last, Proxim argued that the proposal to permit frequency
hopping spread spectrum systems would benefit small business by permitting "a low cost means for home-
based business to create a low-cost network capable of supporting high-capacity communications" a
network capability that, currently, "likely is beyond the financial and/or technical reach of many small
businesses and most very small home-based businesses."
SBA's second comment was dated February 29, 2000. SBA clarified its position in light of Proxim's filing,
stating that even if the significant economic effect of a proposal will be beneficial for small business, the
proposal must be described and analyzed in an adequate IRFA. SBA stated that it did not wish to delay the
issuance of final rules, and that, in light of the information provided by Proxim, the Commission should
rectify its IRFA by conducting an adequate FRFA in conjunction with the adoption of final rules.
The Senate Committee on Small Business, in its comment dated August 8, 2000, stated that the IRFA did
not sufficiently describe why the proposed action was being taken, did not discuss the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements or skills necessary to satisfy the requirements of the rules, and did not offer
alternatives to the proposed rules that would minimize the impact on small business. The Committee asked
that the Commission revise the IRFA. The House Committee on Small Business, in its comment dated
August 15, 2000, concurred with the Senate Committee's position.
SBA, in its third comment, dated August 18, 2000, stated that, in filing its second comment, SBA "did not
intend to withdraw its critical comments or relieve the FCC of its duty under RFA."
In response to these comments, we have conducted this present, full FRFA. We also take this opportunity
to discuss the previous analysis or IRFA, which was sufficient to generate comments from the small
business community. We believe that the record indicates that the IRFA met the objectives of the RFA.
Delaying issuance of final rules at this time would not, therefore, advance those objectives.
First, concerning whether the IRFA sufficiently described why the proposed action was being taken, we
note that the reason for action is clearly stated in the first paragraph of the Notice. The paragraph reads in
part, "We take this action to facilitate the continued development and deployment of spread spectrum
technology, particularly for high data rate wireless applications." Therefore, interested parties who read the
document were notified in the beginning of the item why the action was being taken. While the IRFA did
not specifically mention the purpose of the proposed action, we believe that the Notice adequately informed
interested parties of the reason for the proposed action, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Concerning whether the IRFA adequately discussed the reporting or recordkeeping requirements or skills
necessary to satisfy the rule requirements, we note that the IRFA stated that the proposed rule changes
would not alter any current reporting or recordkeeping requirements. We emphasize that Part 15
transmitters must be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure prior to marketing. The
certification procedure requires that the device in question be tested to ensure that it is in compliance with
Commission regulations. An application for certification must contain a report describing the test
procedure as well as the test results. The proposal in the NPRM would permit alternative modes of
operation for frequency hopping systems. However, the new operating modes would not alter the reporting
or recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers of these devices.
The NPRM also proposed a modified test procedure for certain direct sequence spread spectrum systems.
The Notice proposed that, "manufacturers of direct sequence spread spectrum systems that use a spreading
rate less than 10 chips per symbol to submit the results of the jamming margin test as well as a calculation
of processing gain to verify compliance." This statement may have created the impression that the
Commission was intending to impose new reporting requirements. However, as stated above, the
certification procedure already requires the submission of test results and a report showing compliance with
the rules. Our proposal only sought to clarify the specific information to include in this report.
Concerning whether the IRFA should have offered and discussed alternatives to the proposed rules that
would have minimized the impact on small businesses, we believed that the proposed rules would have had
a positive affect on small businesses. Thus, we did not offer alternatives. Again, we should emphasize that
the proposals would not require manufacturers to modify existing products. Instead, the rules would allow
the introduction of new devices into the marketplace. We expect that the final rules we have adopted will
benefit small manufacturers by allowing them to distribute more diverse products.
Concerning whether the IRFA provided sufficient information so that the public could react in an informed
manner, we note that, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. 553, the Commission
must provide ample opportunity for the public to comment on proposed rules. In this proceeding, the
Commission provided a 75-day filing window for initial comments, followed by a 122-day period for reply
comments. In total, the public had over six months to provide comments. More than 200 comments and
other submissions were filed in this proceeding. Many of the commenters, including small businesses and
educational institutions, enthusiastically endorsed the proposed changes. With the exception of the Small
Business Administration, which subsequently clarified its comments, and Congress, no commenters raised
adverse concerns regarding the IRFA. The Commission relies upon the public record to develop its rules.
The rules changes in this proceeding were initiated at the urging and support of the small business
community.
In addition, for existing manufacturers of frequency hopping equipment to take advantage of the revised
rule and begin to supply the new frequency hopping equipment, the manufacturer will need only to slightly
modify frequency control components in their products. Such modification appears to us, given common
understanding of the equipment, to be achievable with minimal effort and cost. In fact, as stated previously,
many manufacturers, including small businesses, enthusiastically supported this rule change.
Last, we note that, in light of comments in response to the NPRM, we have altered our equipment usage
parameters to eliminate the interference potential that might have resulted under the proposed rule. The
changes have included eliminating the use of overlapping channels and reducing the maximum permitted
power output. This will assist entities that purchase and operate the new equipment (who are outside of this
RFA analysis).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term
"small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdictions." In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
"small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, unless the Commission has
developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. A "small business concern" is one
that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets
any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically directed toward manufacturers
of unlicensed communications devices. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to
manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment. According to the
SBA regulations, unlicensed transmitter manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employees in order to
qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S. companies that
manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms
have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. This action will not have a
negative impact on small entities that manufacture unlicensed spread spectrum devices.
According to SBA regulations, an electronic computer manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small entity. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 716 firms that
manufacture electronic computers. Of those, 659 have fewer than 500 employees and qualify as small
entities. The remaining 57 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we unable to determine how
many of those have 1,000 or fewer employees and therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition.
According to SBA regulations, a computer terminal manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer employees in
order to qualify as a small entity. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 757 firms that manufacture
computer terminals. Of those, 162 have fewer than 500 employees and qualify as small entities. The
remaining 11 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we unable to determine how many of those have
1,000 or fewer employees and therefore also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
According to SBA regulations, a computer peripheral equipment manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer
employees in order to qualify as a small entity. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 757 firms that
manufacture computer terminal equipment. Of those, 701 have fewer than 500 employees and qualify as
small entities. The remaining 56 firms have 500 or more employees; however, we unable to determine
how many of those have 1,000 or fewer employees and therefore also qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition.
According to SBA regulations, a manufacturer of household appliances must have 500 or fewer employees
in order to qualify as a small entity. Census bureau indicates that there are 55 firms that manufacture
household equipment in the "catch all" category for such data. Of those, 42 have fewer than 500 employees
and qualify as small entities. The remaining 13 firms have 500 or more employees, and therefore, unless
one or more has exactly 500 employees do not qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure
as a prerequisite to marketing and importation. See 47 C.F.R. 15.101, 15.201, 15.305, and 15.405. The
new regulations will add permissible methods of operation for frequency hopping spread spectrum systems.
No new reporting or recordkeeping requirements will be required for the manufacturers of frequency
hopping spread spectrum devices.
As previously noted, in the NPRM in this proceeding, the Commission also proposed a modified test
procedure for certain direct sequence spread spectrum devices. Although this First Report and Order does
not address this second issue, we emphasize that the proposed processing gain measurement procedure
would not alter reporting or recordkeeping requirements. As stated above, the certification procedure
already requires the submission of test results and a report showing compliance with Commission rules.
The proposal would clarify the specific information to include in this report.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant
Alternatives Considered.
The rule changes adopted in this First Report and Order are intended to support the development of
improved frequency hopping spread spectrum systems. These actions will benefit frequency hopping
spread spectrum manufacturers, including small entities.
In the NPRM, we proposed to allow frequency hopping systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band to operate
with bandwidths of up to 5MHz. The increase in bandwidth over 1 MHz would be accompanied by a
proportionate decrease in output power. The minimum number of hopping channels would remain the
same.
Supporters of the NPRM argued that the rule changes were needed to accommodate high-speed data
transmissions for home and business applications. The opponents argued that the proposed changes would
cause unacceptable interference to other Part 15 devices already operating in this spectrum. While they
recognized that Part 15 devices have no interference protection under the rules, opponents asserted that the
Commission should act on public interest grounds to avoid increasing interference to existing consumer
devices. They suggested several modifications to the proposal which, they claimed, would reduce the
interference threat. Proponents of the NPRM also filed modified proposals in an effort to reach a
compromise.
In response to the comments filed by interested parties, including small businesses, the Commission
modified the proposal contained in the NPRM by requiring frequency hopping systems to use at least 15
non-overlapping channels. We have also reduced the maximum transmitter output power from that which
was proposed in the NPRM. The new rules will accomplish the objectives stated in the NPRM while
creating less of an interference threat to other systems currently operating in the 2400 2483.5 MHz band.
The changes we adopt in this First Report and Order will result in increased maximum data rates for
frequency hopping spread spectrum devices operating in the 2.4 GHz band. The rules will benefit
manufacturers of home electronic equipment, including small businesses, by enabling them to offer
customers a greater variety of products that meet their customers' networking needs.
As noted, we received numerous comments in this proceeding, and one alternative would have been to deny
the request of Home RF and other proponents. That alternative, which we rejected, would not have resulted
in the introduction of high-speed data applications that we believe will result as a consequence of the rules
we are adopting.
Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the First Report and Order, including this
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to SBREFA. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
First Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
First Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD
Re: Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Devices,
(ET Docket No. 99-231)
The Commission action to allow frequency hopping spread spectrum systems in the 2.4 GHz band to use
wider hopping channels will facilitate development of new high-speed data devices for business and
consumer applications such as transmission of CD-quality audio and video streams from home PCs to
portable devices. The wider bandwidths will permit these systems to provide higher data speeds, thereby
enabling the development of new and improved consumer products such as wireless computer local area
networks and wireless cable modems.
The Commission's action represents a reasonable engineering compromise between the risks of increased
interference and the desire to accommodate new technologies. We believe that this compromise strikes an
appropriate balance among the interests of the various parties. It will permit the introduction of wide band
frequency hopping technology that will lead to new and innovative devices. At the same time, we have
adjusted the proposal to mitigate any adverse impact on other Part 15 devices.
The changes that we have adopted represent an important step in responding to technology evolution and
will foster small business development and further innovation. The rules changes will benefit small
manufacturers by allowing them to distribute more diverse products. In turn, the more diverse product
selection will provide greater flexibility in designing wireless networks, thereby benefiting small businesses
that use these types of devices.
JOINT STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONERS SUSAN NESS AND HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
Re: Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Devices,
(ET Docket No. 99-231).
By this Order, the Commission amends Part 15 of its rules in a manner that will permit frequency
hopping spread spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band to provide higher data speeds. These amendments
should pave the way for manufacturers of these devices to bring new services to consumers and compete in
the marketplace for distribution of wireless computer local area networks and cable modems. We are
concerned about the effect these changes will have on spread spectrum devices already in the hands of
consumers. However, we recognize that the FCC engineering staff has worked hard for more than a year
to assess the interference claims of the parties and adjust the proposed amendments in an attempt to balance
the benefits of the new spread spectrum devices against the potential for interference to existing devices.
Unlicensed operations under Part 15 are, and should continue to be, a valuable laboratory for
experimentation and the provision of innovative services to American consumers in this band.
We also write separately because the Commission's initial regulatory flexibility analysis ("IRFA") in
this proceeding was unquestionably terse. The Small Business Administration and the Committees on Small
Business of both the Senate and House of Representatives have expressed their concern over the lack of
specificity in our initial statement. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, including Section 603, requires the FCC
to assess and explore the impact of our regulations on small businesses. The IRFA itself is designed not
only to cause the Commission to examine these issues thoughtfully, but also to allow outside parties to
comment fully on these issues. In this regard, we note more than 100 interested parties including small
businesses commented in this proceeding and that there has been substantial public interest in the docket.
Nonetheless, small businesses represent a creative and booming sector of our economy and we have an
obligation to ensure that their regulatory burden is no heavier than necessary to achieve the goals of the Act.
Thus, going forward, we believe the Commission should recommit itself to a close examination of the
issues raised by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have a statutory obligation to do so and the small
business community deserves nothing less.